I misread it... Not that I can figure out what difference it makes. Running the search again...
Still not a fact.
I call foul on that one. You're dismissing evidence you don't like based on your ability to read their collective mind.As for the other points, I'd like to referred to specific documents. Societies even Scientific ones tend to play politics with a lot of the political statements. There is an awful lot of situations where the evidence isn't enough to conclude something yet and they claim the conclusion anyways, which happens far less in actual papers.
Knowing there's a cycle isn't the same as proving we're in a certain point in that cycle. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence the increase in atmospheric CO2 mirrors the increase in temperatures over the years. I'm sorry, but thinking this is coincidental seems a little unreasonable to me.As for there being no evidence at all of us being in a temperature cycle, that is false. The fact is there is evidence that the earth is constantly in a cycle with trend, the problem is we don't have enough information to conclusively state what that trend is, because there is a lot of noise in the data, and we only have a very small time period to look at.
It's over century's worth of data.Again, temperature change happens on massive scales, so 10-20 years of data is basically on the level of a blip and isn't really something to take all that seriously, especially when it has notable exceptions.